GUN DEBATE!

For all other chat which isn't directly related to lucid dreaming and the world of sleep and dreams.
User avatar
Worldenterer1
Posts: 347
Joined: 03 Sep 2011 19:35
Location: Earth

Re: GUN DEBATE!

Postby Worldenterer1 » 31 Mar 2013 01:22

Here is my reply to everyone who has been giving me negative responses.
Just read this article please, and it basically explains my viewpoint. Actually, this article was what shaped my viewpoint.

http://cferreira.hubpages.com/hub/Everyone-Should-Have-a-Gun

:)
Lucid Dream Count: 10
Normal Dream Count: 100+
Goal for next LD: Think with portals.

User avatar
taniaaust1
Posts: 2990
Joined: 07 Feb 2013 15:32
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Re: GUN DEBATE!

Postby taniaaust1 » 31 Mar 2013 05:43

Jack Reacher wrote:"If only those children were armed" doesn't really sound so swell does it?


Maybe that's what needed.. every child to be sent to school with a gun :lol:
....

On the nuclear bomb subject.. I do think if every country had its own bomb it may help prevent some from dropping a bomb onto another country but the thing is sooner or later a country is going to have a nutcase leader who dont care if the other country reacts in the same way towards them.

eg Hitler.. if he had a nuclear bomb Im sure he wouldnt have minded dropping it onto another country when he knew he'd lost the war as he didnt care much at all about his countries own peoples (didnt he encourage all his generals to kill themselves when the war was lost?) so he wouldnt have worried about the consequence.
The only thing to fear is the fear itself

User avatar
taniaaust1
Posts: 2990
Joined: 07 Feb 2013 15:32
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Re: GUN DEBATE!

Postby taniaaust1 » 31 Mar 2013 06:05

Worldenterer1 wrote:Here is my reply to everyone who has been giving me negative responses.
Just read this article please, and it basically explains my viewpoint. Actually, this article was what shaped my viewpoint.

http://cferreira.hubpages.com/hub/Everyone-Should-Have-a-Gun

:)


Im going to quote on some of those far arguements on that link. They dont hold for me.

If everyone has a gun, more people will commit crimes.

Not true at all. Because everyone knows that everyone else is armed, people will be less likely to commit a crime. They have a much smaller chance of getting away with it when everyone around them is armed and trained. This is where the scenario training comes into play. Let's say a guy walks into a bank to rob it. As soon as he pulls out his gun or makes any kind of threat, the 5 employees, and 2-10 customers will have their weapons drawn and aimed right at him. He could try to shoot his way out, but he is outnumbered and will inevitably be shot.



Take their senario.. it wouldnt be a case of less crime but rather criminals would just plan smarter eg instead of robbing the bank when its full of people, they'd rob bank when closed or rob something which is easier to rob in which there isnt people around.

People would just start shooting at anyone with their gun drawn. It would be chaotic, and the bad guy would not be the only guy that gets hurt.

People would be trained to assess every situation. They would be so well trained that they would know what is happening, and where to aim.


Just cause people have been trained to assess a situation it dont mean they are going to shoot another. You cant train people to kill without changing peoples whole mindset togethers others (eg aware from caring for others and love). Many people would never kill another human even if they were robbing a bank.. and rather just flee the situation or do nothing at all and just lay on the floor as told with their hands out. Maybe you'd be willing to kill but many arent.

Think about all the drunken bar fights...things would escalate and people would get shot instead of just beat up.

A person that is too drunk to realize that if they shoot someone, they will also be shot is definitely too drunk to use a gun. And if this is not the case, well we have one victim, which we would have had anyway, and a dead shooter who was useless to society anyway.



The person who is drunk and staggering may end up shooting all over the place.. may end up killing more then one, it doesnt make him less dangerous cause he's drunk. Many people would just flee the placeor just take cover and not shoot the drunk.
That assumption is assuming a drunk will think about the consequences or be too drunk to hit anyone..its completely wrong.

Say someone gets fired, becomes enraged, and brings a gun into the building and shoots the person that fired them.

This would happen anyway! If someone really wanted to shoot someone for firing them, there is nothing stopping them from getting a gun, legally or illegally. The fact that they know everyone in the office including the person who fired them is armed, will make them think twice before acting. They will be less likely to take this action knowing that they will be shot immediately.



i completely disagree... a person who is so enraged that they want to do this and are actually willing to do it.. does not care about the consequences. Someone that enraged that they are willing to murder.. will not be thinking straight. Its like the abusive husband who bashes up his wife when he gets angry.. some kill their wives in their rage.. they arent really thinking well. They later often really regret they kill their wives or put her into hospital or whatever (hence why abusers so often are having to say sorry afterwards)

A gun in the hands of someone in a rage is never a good idea, its not a safe gun situation.
.......

I was hoping for some better arguements for gun debate.. these ones were quite poor.
The only thing to fear is the fear itself

User avatar
Jack Reacher
Posts: 490
Joined: 21 Jan 2012 05:03
Location: New Zealand

Re: GUN DEBATE!

Postby Jack Reacher » 01 Apr 2013 05:18

Works fine in theory if we all are sober and rational, and we are all doing just swell. However even if it is fine in theory, the fact remains you have increased the potential for death, the potential for something going wrong is huge. Its like cars, only we go through with it because they are essential in many ways, guns aren't.

As for the training, sure maybe at one point in time every gun scenario could have a training program ( sounds absurd as it is to me) but that doesn't stop evolution. In fact by doing such a drastic step such as this we have changed the balance of power so much that we have no idea really what to expect. Every ignorant stupid individual who didnt have a gun before now has one. School shootings will happen that much more, people who are down on their luck who wanna go out with a bang will just start spree killing.

Also the assumption that everyone is competant enough to be well trained is a big one, most people would probably just freeze on the spot. Not everyone will be good enough to hit the target, loads of innocent peopel die from stray bullets from trained cops as it is.

Basically all the problems we have today caused by guns, will be magnified by a factor in the thousands.
He talks about the jump from guns to no guns being impossible, this jump is equally as hard.

A final word, those criminals who actually want to get away with crimes will simply evolve. They will get better guns, use more dangerous tactics that work, the next solution will have us all carrying body armour or something else that is even more bizare that we cant comprehend. So again you have the nuclear arms race, it will just simply escalate to madness, with the risk factor getting bigger and bigger.
"There is theoretical abstraction, and then there is true abstraction."

User avatar
Worldenterer1
Posts: 347
Joined: 03 Sep 2011 19:35
Location: Earth

Re: GUN DEBATE!

Postby Worldenterer1 » 01 Apr 2013 18:01

taniaaust1 wrote:
Worldenterer1 wrote:Here is my reply to everyone who has been giving me negative responses.
Just read this article please, and it basically explains my viewpoint. Actually, this article was what shaped my viewpoint.

http://cferreira.hubpages.com/hub/Everyone-Should-Have-a-Gun

:)


Im going to quote on some of those far arguements on that link. They dont hold for me.

If everyone has a gun, more people will commit crimes.

Not true at all. Because everyone knows that everyone else is armed, people will be less likely to commit a crime. They have a much smaller chance of getting away with it when everyone around them is armed and trained. This is where the scenario training comes into play. Let's say a guy walks into a bank to rob it. As soon as he pulls out his gun or makes any kind of threat, the 5 employees, and 2-10 customers will have their weapons drawn and aimed right at him. He could try to shoot his way out, but he is outnumbered and will inevitably be shot.



Take their senario.. it wouldnt be a case of less crime but rather criminals would just plan smarter eg instead of robbing the bank when its full of people, they'd rob bank when closed or rob something which is easier to rob in which there isnt people around.

People would just start shooting at anyone with their gun drawn. It would be chaotic, and the bad guy would not be the only guy that gets hurt.

People would be trained to assess every situation. They would be so well trained that they would know what is happening, and where to aim.


Just cause people have been trained to assess a situation it dont mean they are going to shoot another. You cant train people to kill without changing peoples whole mindset togethers others (eg aware from caring for others and love). Many people would never kill another human even if they were robbing a bank.. and rather just flee the situation or do nothing at all and just lay on the floor as told with their hands out. Maybe you'd be willing to kill but many arent.

Think about all the drunken bar fights...things would escalate and people would get shot instead of just beat up.

A person that is too drunk to realize that if they shoot someone, they will also be shot is definitely too drunk to use a gun. And if this is not the case, well we have one victim, which we would have had anyway, and a dead shooter who was useless to society anyway.



The person who is drunk and staggering may end up shooting all over the place.. may end up killing more then one, it doesnt make him less dangerous cause he's drunk. Many people would just flee the placeor just take cover and not shoot the drunk.
That assumption is assuming a drunk will think about the consequences or be too drunk to hit anyone..its completely wrong.

Say someone gets fired, becomes enraged, and brings a gun into the building and shoots the person that fired them.

This would happen anyway! If someone really wanted to shoot someone for firing them, there is nothing stopping them from getting a gun, legally or illegally. The fact that they know everyone in the office including the person who fired them is armed, will make them think twice before acting. They will be less likely to take this action knowing that they will be shot immediately.



i completely disagree... a person who is so enraged that they want to do this and are actually willing to do it.. does not care about the consequences. Someone that enraged that they are willing to murder.. will not be thinking straight. Its like the abusive husband who bashes up his wife when he gets angry.. some kill their wives in their rage.. they arent really thinking well. They later often really regret they kill their wives or put her into hospital or whatever (hence why abusers so often are having to say sorry afterwards)

A gun in the hands of someone in a rage is never a good idea, its not a safe gun situation.
.......

I was hoping for some better arguements for gun debate.. these ones were quite poor.


It's possilbe to find weak points in any argument. That's what you are doing here. Just because you can point out a few things that might not work doesn't mean that the arguments are incorrect. Also, I never went hating on your arguments, so why can't you consider the good in mine?
Lucid Dream Count: 10
Normal Dream Count: 100+
Goal for next LD: Think with portals.

User avatar
Jack Reacher
Posts: 490
Joined: 21 Jan 2012 05:03
Location: New Zealand

Re: GUN DEBATE!

Postby Jack Reacher » 01 Apr 2013 21:18

I just think its too theoretical what you are suggesting, I mean if you simply want this topic to be some formal debate where we posit arguements and such then go for it I suppose, but to me frankly speaking I just don't see this happening practically.
"There is theoretical abstraction, and then there is true abstraction."

User avatar
Worldenterer1
Posts: 347
Joined: 03 Sep 2011 19:35
Location: Earth

Re: GUN DEBATE!

Postby Worldenterer1 » 01 Apr 2013 23:06

Jack Reacher wrote:I just think its too theoretical what you are suggesting, I mean if you simply want this topic to be some formal debate where we posit arguements and such then go for it I suppose, but to me frankly speaking I just don't see this happening practically.


I think I just might have to agree with you.
Lucid Dream Count: 10
Normal Dream Count: 100+
Goal for next LD: Think with portals.

User avatar
taniaaust1
Posts: 2990
Joined: 07 Feb 2013 15:32
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Re: GUN DEBATE!

Postby taniaaust1 » 04 Apr 2013 11:22

Worldenterer1 wrote:It's possilbe to find weak points in any argument. That's what you are doing here. Just because you can point out a few things that might not work doesn't mean that the arguments are incorrect. Also, I never went hating on your arguments, so why can't you consider the good in mine?


sorry I didnt mean to post so strongly, I just found it all horrendous and it doesnt seem rational. It wasnt about finding weak points, I thought basically all the points were weak.

those criminals who actually want to get away with crimes will simply evolve. They will get better guns,


It brings a vision of everyone with normal guns and all the criminals even those who were average criminals before, now having machine guns. All the police would be having to carry machine guns too to be on equal footing with the crims or maybe it then would be better to just give the police bombs to use so they can more easily stop the machine gun wielding crim.
The only thing to fear is the fear itself

User avatar
Jack Reacher
Posts: 490
Joined: 21 Jan 2012 05:03
Location: New Zealand

Re: GUN DEBATE!

Postby Jack Reacher » 05 Apr 2013 03:32

Its pretty much what happened to the nuclear arms race, I am so glad I didnt live in the cold war period I mean if they carried out the way they were going based on theories very similar to this we wouldnt be having this conversation, or any conversation at all for that matter.
"There is theoretical abstraction, and then there is true abstraction."

User avatar
Worldenterer1
Posts: 347
Joined: 03 Sep 2011 19:35
Location: Earth

Re: GUN DEBATE!

Postby Worldenterer1 » 08 Apr 2013 03:06

taniaaust1 wrote:It brings a vision of everyone with normal guns and all the criminals even those who were average criminals before, now having machine guns. All the police would be having to carry machine guns too to be on equal footing with the crims or maybe it then would be better to just give the police bombs to use so they can more easily stop the machine gun wielding crim.


"If you can hit your target, pretty much any gun will do the trick."
-Revy
Lucid Dream Count: 10
Normal Dream Count: 100+
Goal for next LD: Think with portals.


Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: HAGART and 1 guest